Guest poignant Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 Big relative to primates, that is. We know they probably were not inspired by Schwarzenegger or Coleman, so what kind of evolutionary pressures would have led to BF's current stature? I can think of a few advantages for supposedly being over 7ft, 400lbs: - thermoregulation; large bodies retain heat better. - BF interacted with the extinct megafauna of North America and size mattered. - Longer limbs allowed for cursorial advantage in covering boreal/montane terrain.
Guest thermalman Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 Just another species that we don't know about. Lots of other out there we haven't found yet.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 (edited) I believe their size/speed/strength is necessary for their survival in North America's Wilderness due to their habits. Unlike the human's from 100,000 years ago, Sasquatch are normally seen hunting and traveling alone instead of groups, making their physical attributes necessary for survival. Just my opinion though. Edited May 10, 2012 by OntarioSquatch
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 Usually apex predators are some of the largest animals in their habitat. It has often been said that BF could be an apex predator, and as such would need to compete for predation territory with other predators. I recall a very interesting documentary about the battles between big cats in Africa, lions will attack leopards, hyenas, and other predators. This effectively removes some of the competition for their food. I can think of two sighting reports that involved BF and bear. In both sightings the bear beat a hasty retreat or was running away and being chased by a BF. This might help explain the need for size. If I was doing hand to hand combat with a bear I would rather be as big as or bigger and stronger than the bear.
indiefoot Posted May 10, 2012 Posted May 10, 2012 Not all of the adults are huge, I wonder if some do not quit growing for some reason.
Guest BlurryMonster Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Two of your points contradict each other. Large size for thermoregulation is usually followed by shortening of the limbs; shorter limbs mean more heat is held closer to the core of the body. That's the reason why Neanderthals have shorter limbs than we do.
Guest poignant Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 There is no contradiction if the ancestor of bf had longer limbs to begin with. Think about that.
Doc Holliday Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) why?....simple........milk or perhaps genetics Edited May 11, 2012 by slicktrick
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Probably so he doesn't have to worry about getting eaten by hungry bears. Or maybe because his ancestors were big, yet the species possessed enough brainpower to survive for all these millenia; they may have even shrunk since then. Or, the most plausible explanation, is that they are so big because the aliens made them that way. :/
yowiie Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 What if, all the sightings in the USA are over estimated, I do beleive they are. Take for example Patty, there she is, in full colour and the estimates of here are all over the shop, from 5'- 7ft. So if the height of this animal cannot be determined, there isn't any hope for eye witness accounts.
Guest Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 I believe their size/speed/strength is necessary for their survival in North America's Wilderness due to their habits. Unlike the human's from 100,000 years ago, Sasquatch are normally seen hunting and traveling alone instead of groups, making their physical attributes necessary for survival. Just my opinion though. Gorillas are quite large and live in family groups so I think it's possible the BF does as well and there are reports of groups. However, I think younger males are more often on their own perhaps due to older males keeping harems like the gorillas. And too, size could vary enormously among populations. Most asian reports suggest smaller dimensions than american reports on average do.
Guest LAL Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Two of your points contradict each other. Large size for thermoregulation is usually followed by shortening of the limbs; shorter limbs mean more heat is held closer to the core of the body. That's the reason why Neanderthals have shorter limbs than we do. How would that work for the Great Apes? They live in the tropics.
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted May 11, 2012 Posted May 11, 2012 Big relative to primates, that is. We know they probably were not inspired by Schwarzenegger or Coleman, so what kind of evolutionary pressures would have led to BF's current stature? I can think of a few advantages for supposedly being over 7ft, 400lbs: - thermoregulation; large bodies retain heat better. - BF interacted with the extinct megafauna of North America and size mattered. - Longer limbs allowed for cursorial advantage in covering boreal/montane terrain. Great points!!! I also started to think at some point that maybe Bigfoot was also part of the megafauna... (which I found very interesting...I wonder if also some Teratorns survived in some isolated places, and they could explain the sightings of large Thunderbirds..but that's another story... I think that size and strenght are the key of the survival of these creatures...survival should not be easiy in places like the Himalaya, Siberia or Alaska...maybe that's the key why Bigfoot survived and other smaller apemen (Erectus, Australophitecus) simply dissapeared. Maybe early humans hunted them all, but maybe they found too risky hunting Bigfoots. So Bigfoots simply retreated to more isolated places....to avoid the interaction with the small Little Feet!!. Greetings. K. Adam.
Recommended Posts